Bo Pelini says that refs told him Nebraska was going to get jobbed at Texas A&M

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Bo Pelini says that refs told him Nebraska was going to get jobbed at Texas A&M
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Aug 2, 2011 1:24 AM
Hb31187;849181 wrote:Yeah, Im even a Michigan fan and I think that game will be a very very tough one. Not so sure if Nebraska shouldnt be the favorite in that game. Depends, is it home or away for Michigan?

It's home. I'm hoping to go.
Aug 2, 2011 1:24am
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Aug 2, 2011 7:16 AM
Pick6;849083 wrote:Didnt they lose the conference championship to Oklahoma?

Yes, but they had a chance to clinch the division that night if I remember correctly. They still had to go out the next week and beat Colorado (not a difficult task) to win their division and go to the Big XII title game. Otherwise Missouri would have gone.
Aug 2, 2011 7:16am
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Aug 2, 2011 7:39 AM
jordo212000;849197 wrote:I'm not a hater or anything, and I actually would love for Michigan to get it turned around, but let's be honest. Nebraska should have their way with Michigan.

especially this year, and they will until Hoke gets his players in place--tsun's defense may be improved this year, but not enough to stop T-Mart & Co.
Aug 2, 2011 7:39am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Aug 2, 2011 9:43 AM
dat dude;849052 wrote:According to sportsbook.com, OSU is an 11 (yes, 11) point underdog @ Nebraska.

How much money are you putting on Nebraska then?
Aug 2, 2011 9:43am
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Aug 2, 2011 10:00 AM
vball10set;849375 wrote:especially this year, and they will until Hoke gets his players in place--tsun's defense may be improved this year, but not enough to stop T-Mart & Co.

I'll be honest. This is how I see the season playing out for us.

I truly think the defense will be improved because of experience, health, and simply better coaching. Al Borges is a good/smart enough OC to hybrid what he wants and what he has. I think this season will be what last season was supposed to be; A good enough defense to make a couple stops, so the offense doesn't HAVE to score every time. If last year's team had a top 50-75 defense, we would have won another game or 2 (Iowa and Penn State is what I'm thinking of).

So, to think that Nebraska should have their way with us is a stretch. Will/Should they be favored? Probably yes, but it's not going to be a route like the Mississippi State, Wisky, OSU games were last year.
Aug 2, 2011 10:00am
T

Tiernan

Senior Member

13,021 posts
Aug 2, 2011 10:38 AM
Cornhuskers will Cornhole scUM.
Aug 2, 2011 10:38am
Classyposter58's avatar

Classyposter58

Senior Member

6,321 posts
Aug 2, 2011 6:10 PM
I really don't see the improvement for the Wolverines this year...honestly they are so bad defensively it's a joke. Honestly until they have a defense that can stop something it'll be another long season
Aug 2, 2011 6:10pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Aug 2, 2011 8:22 PM
bigkahuna;849487 wrote:Will/Should they be favored? Probably yes

Probably??? lol
Aug 2, 2011 8:22pm
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Aug 2, 2011 8:46 PM
SportsAndLady;850101 wrote:Probably??? lol

Right now, they should be. However, we don't know what the season holds.

Nobody thought Michigan was going to be very good in 2006. I'm not saying it's going to be like that, but yes they probably will be favored.
Aug 2, 2011 8:46pm
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Aug 2, 2011 8:57 PM
bigkahuna;850142 wrote:Right now, they should be. However, we don't know what the season holds.

Nobody thought Michigan was going to be very good in 2006. I'm not saying it's going to be like that, but yes they probably will be favored.

huh? with Henne, Hart, Long, Woodley, etc., who didn't think they were going to be "very good"??
Aug 2, 2011 8:57pm
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Aug 2, 2011 9:49 PM
vball10set;850158 wrote:huh? with Henne, Hart, Long, Woodley, etc., who didn't think they were going to be "very good"??

I don't think anyone was expecting them going undefeated or having THAT good of a defense.

We went into that season preseason ranked 15th. In week 3, we were ranked 11th and went to South Bend. ND was ranked 2nd at the time. At the end of that game is when people thought Michigan might be something special because they completely dominated the Irish.

In 2005, we went 7-5 (Including a loss to Nebraska in the Alamo Bowl).

That's why with my original statement, Nebraska should be favored against Michigan, but we won't know until after the season starts.
Aug 2, 2011 9:49pm
S

Sonofanump

Aug 3, 2011 10:20 AM
As for the original post- I can’t see this happening. No way would a game official (referee is the one in the offensive backfield with the white hat one) state before, during or after a game such an idea even if it was true.

Worst hijacked thread by the other 30 posts on here.
Aug 3, 2011 10:20am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Aug 3, 2011 10:51 AM
krambman;849077 wrote:Watching that game I felt as if the refs were making it so that Nebraska would not leave the Big XII as conference champions. This is a very serious accusation Pelini is making though.

From the limited amount of watching I do, the state of college football officiating is horrible. Based on that, I think it far more likely that a badly officiated game is due to simple ineptitude rather than dishonesty.
Aug 3, 2011 10:51am
S

Sonofanump

Aug 3, 2011 10:54 AM
queencitybuckeye;850642 wrote:From the limited amount of watching I do, the state of college football officiating is horrible. Based on that, I think it far more likely that a badly officiated game is due to simple ineptitude rather than dishonesty.

The NCAA BCS has the second best set of game officials in the world, second to only the NFL.
Aug 3, 2011 10:54am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Aug 3, 2011 11:01 AM
Sonofanump;850645 wrote:The NCAA BCS has the second best set of game officials in the world, second to only the NFL.

Someone is the second best hockey player in Ecuador, but whomever that is likely sucks.
Aug 3, 2011 11:01am
S

Sonofanump

Aug 3, 2011 11:34 AM
queencitybuckeye;850653 wrote:Someone is the second best hockey player in Ecuador, but whomever that is likely sucks.

Sorry, tried to explain it to someone who had no quantitative perspective or any practical experience with the subject matter.
Aug 3, 2011 11:34am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Aug 3, 2011 11:45 AM
Sonofanump;850686 wrote:Sorry, tried to explain it to someone who had no quantitative perspective or any practical experience with the subject matter.

You didn't "explain" anything, you made a statement that you can't begin to prove in any objective way.

Just because someone is the best at something doesn't mean they are great at it. You brought up the NFL, do you believe the officiating in pro ball is great? It isn't.
Aug 3, 2011 11:45am
S

Sonofanump

Aug 3, 2011 11:58 AM
queencitybuckeye;850693 wrote:Just because someone is the best at something doesn't mean they are great at it.

Interesting.
Aug 3, 2011 11:58am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Aug 3, 2011 12:04 PM
Sonofanump;850707 wrote:Interesting.

and accurate. There are many human endeavors where the current state of the art isn't very good.
Aug 3, 2011 12:04pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Aug 3, 2011 12:05 PM
queencitybuckeye;850693 wrote: Just because someone is the best at something doesn't mean they are great at it. You brought up the NFL, do you believe the officiating in pro ball is great? It isn't.

I don't disagree with the first line. But what is your reference point for measuring officiating? Do you believe that officiating is worse now than at another period of time? Or are officials just by nature bad at the job? What would you say the percentage of "correct" calls is and where should it be?

I mean, nobody is perfect. Do you consider there to be any "great" hitters in baseball history, considering the best have rarely had a hit in even 4 out of 10 at-bats? Or are there any "great" shooters in basketball, considering the best typically only make a little over half their shots (and most with that percentage don't take many real shots)?
Aug 3, 2011 12:05pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Aug 3, 2011 12:14 PM
enigmaax;850711 wrote:Do you believe that officiating is worse now than at another period of time?
Yes.
Or are there any "great" shooters in basketball, considering the best typically only make a little over half their shots (and most with that percentage don't take many real shots)?
Yes there are, however there's little doubt that the overall level of shooting is not as good as a generation ago. It can't be proven with statistics for the reason you stated at the end of the quote above, but i believe most people interested in the sport would agree through simple observation.
Aug 3, 2011 12:14pm
S

Sonofanump

Aug 3, 2011 12:18 PM
queencitybuckeye;850710 wrote:and accurate. There are many human endeavors where the current state of the art isn't very good.

No hitter in the history of baseball was ever great since they fail at least half the time to get a hit.

But football game officials who get 149 of the 150 plays a game correct are inept?

Did I fall for a joke that I did not know about?
Aug 3, 2011 12:18pm
S

Sonofanump

Aug 3, 2011 12:19 PM
enigmaax;850711 wrote:IDo you believe that officiating is worse now than at another period of time?

Empirical data says that game officiating is the best now than it ever was.
Aug 3, 2011 12:19pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Aug 3, 2011 12:29 PM
queencitybuckeye;850715 wrote: Yes there are, however there's little doubt that the overall level of shooting is not as good as a generation ago. It can't be proven with statistics for the reason you stated at the end of the quote above, but i believe most people interested in the sport would agree through simple observation.
Sonofanump;850721 wrote:No hitter in the history of baseball was ever great since they fail at least half the time to get a hit.

But football game officials who get 149 of the 150 plays a game correct are inept?

I'm really interested in the perspectives on this because a lot of the discussion depends on your point-of-reference. For example, is it that there aren't as many "great" shooters today or is it that the "average" shooter isn't as good? In baseball, are there less "great" hitters today or is it just that the "great" hitters aren't as great anymore (and is that because they lack skills or because pitching, in general, has improved)?

As far as officiating, do officials really get 149 out of 150 plays a game correct, on average? And if they do really grade out pretty well, is the perception of bad officiating really just a product of the enhanced coverage available these days? Is it possible that we just hear about more bad calls now because we see more highlights and have more access to national opinions (where there's bound to be someone everyday who complains about a call of some type)?
Aug 3, 2011 12:29pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Aug 3, 2011 12:30 PM
Sonofanump;850721 wrote:
But football game officials who get 149 of the 150 plays a game correct are inept?


Who made that statement? I know I didn't.
Aug 3, 2011 12:30pm